The Dopiest Rule...

Not sure what your point is, but there is a difference between "Who am I speaking to?" and "Where is the gymnasium at?" The first may now been seen as correct (although I, being hideously old-fashioned, may well say "To whom am I speaking?") but the second is just plain wrong in anyone's books. "At" is not necessary. You don't have to end that sentence with a preposition for clarity's sake. "Where is the gymnasium?" (Or even "Where is the gymnasium, please?" as politeness is also something on which I insist.)

As long as it's within dialogue it's fine.

JJ

Agreed, if that is the way the character would speak. But in general usage and in our everyday speech, surely it's best to try to follow the correct rules of grammar. I know the above example is a joke (at least, I hope it is!) but people are often judged by how they speak. And although the Oxford students are depicted as hoity-toity and overly correct, the American (in this example) has lowered himself unnecessarily. I know, I know, I'm probably being overly pedantic, and I have no wish to start one of those hideous "English grammar is better than American grammar" threads (particularly when English grammar these days seems to be absolutely appalling), but I'm sorry, "where you at?" is just dreadful grammar, in anyone's books!

Winston Churchill ended that problem of a Germanic language with Latin grammar when he said/wrote--This is a situation up with which I will not put.

Also, one cannot split a Latin infinitive; thus another English grammar rule that is nonsensical.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

Preposition

The Churchill quotation, "This is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put," may or may not be apocryphal, but it does make a good point.

"Never end a sentence with a preposition" isn't really a rule at all, but it usually is very good advice. You have to look at each sentence and decide whether it does or does not work. Sometimes, now and then, the best possible way to end a sentence is with a preposition. Most of the time, however, it's bad writing, and reads horribly.

You can't just say this is a good or bad "rule". Sometimes it's a lousy rule, but more often than not it's a rule that should be followed.

As for: An American visiting Oxford U. in England, goes up to what appears to be a student, and says, "Excuse me, but, where's the gymnasium at?"

The student draws himself up in righteous indignation and replies, "We here at Oxford do not end sentences with prepositions, and we don't answer questions thusly posed!"

"Oh, Jeez, you're absolutely right," says the Yank. "Allow me to re-phrase that: Where's the gymnasium at, asshole?"

This is a joke derived from a true story, but it wasn't an American visiting Oxford, and it was a river, not a gymnasium. At any rate, it's a lousy example. You'd have to be functionally illiterate to end a sentence such as "Excuse me, but, where's the gymnasium" with a preposition.

I believe a stupider rule is "Never start a sentence with 'And.'"

I do, however, know a guy who refused to pick up a hooker right after he got out of jail. Seems he was concerned about ending his sentence with a proposition.

1. "nonsense up with which I shall not put," points towards an interesting issue. The "up" in "put up with" does not function the same way that the "with" does. The original rule (Dryden, sometime in the 17th century), I think, would not have separated "up" from "put". Classical grammar theory might even call "up" an adverb, here. The "with", on the other hand, is not tied to the verb, but to "nonsense", or the relative pronoun "which", which it modifies.

So, according to the original rule, Churchill should have said, "nonsense with which I shall not put up." Also fronting the "up" is either a sly rhetorical move, or aimed at a broader, misunderstood rule.

2. The joke makes it clear that the rule isn't about sentences as such. The idea is that the preposition should precede the pronoun (interrogative or relative) it relates to. Whether you add an "asshole" or not has no bearing on the grammar (and it's clear the speaker knows this). The rule, then, must not be taken literally.

3. If you omit a relative pronoun, or use "that", you have no choice but to put the preposition at the end of the clause:

YES: the man to whom I have spoken
YES: the man who I have spoken to
YES: the man that I have spoken to
YES: the man I have spoken to

NO: the man to that I have spoken
NO: the man to I have spoken

So any grammar who claims that rule must also provide additional rules that restrict the usage of relative pronouns (omission, "that"). If you want it interesting, you can have two rules battle for supremacy:

a) Don't end sentences with prespostions. b) Don't use "which" to introduce restrictive relative clauses.

I have sent a letter to Londong, and then another to Paris.

a) London is the first place to which I have sent a letter.
b) London is the first place that I have sent a letter to.

You cannot follow both rules at once:

NO: a+b) London is the first place to that I have sent a letter.

Yet many people who teach (a) also teach (b). The idea is to "write around the problem" and not to take grammarians to task for silly rulemongering. (And to write the way you want to, when they're not looking.)

Many so-called grammar rules are really stylistic preferenced backed by false authority. Adhere to these rules if you're writing to people you know to insist on them. Otherwise, write the way you want. You'll always violate one rule or another, as many of them are mutually exclusive. The problem disappears if you don't think of grammar as a set of rules you must adhere to, but as a set of tools you are applying.

So to summerize:

1. Rules depend on theory. One man's preposition may be another man's adverb. Define your terms.

2. Take rules literally at your peril. Never apply a rule you don't understand.

3. Many rules that are vigorously defended by some and called silly by others are no more than stylistic preferences. Rather than asking whether the rule is silly or not, ask who insists on the rules in question. It's not a question of grammar, it's one of audience.

To me this is not a rule, just a guideline, and it works in formal writing. Casual writing, on the other hand, calls for a more casual style. For example, in a 1st person contemporary story about an Average Joe, this would sound wrong:

I met the guard with whom I had a conversation. I went to the building at which the meeting was held.


People don't usually talk like that, anymore.

maestrowork said:

To me this is not a rule, just a guideline, and it works in formal writing. Casual writing, on the other hand, calls for a more casual style. For example, in a 1st person contemporary story about an Average Joe, this would sound wrong:

I met the guard with whom I had a conversation. I went to the building at which the meeting was held.


People don't usually talk like that, anymore.

Click to expand...

Yeah. And I don't exactly carry around a handbook to check myself innnnn when I talk.

So unless your character is a grammar freak or from the seventeen hundreds (and a grammar freak...), it's cool to relax.

As I recall (and it ain't that easy anymore) about 50 years ago, my high school English teacher said the the "no ending a sentence with a preposition rule," came about because in centuries past English grammar evolved out of (or was grounded in) Latin grammar, and Latin had no prepositions. Board experts in Latin may verify that. The only Latin thing I can remember now is Roman Numerals one (I) through ten (X), and Super Bowl XXIII.

"No single word paragraphs." Again, if it happens in dialogue, you can't avoid it.

People are screaming about adverbs on other boards, but I can't figure out what's going on. Stop using them altogether? Minimize their use? Whatevs.

And that whole "remember to wear pants to work" thing. Dopiest. Rule. Evars.

Writing stories and novels, the only rules are readability and consistency in the characters' speech. In other situations, rules apply. I worked for Encyclopaedia Britannica (note the "ae") for several years. Everything we wrote had to go through excrutiating copy editing to make sure there were no spelling (horrors!) or grammar errors. King's English, too, even though we were in Chicago writing for a mostly American audience. No matter how awkward it might seem, follow the rules. (spell check is sure I misspelled encyclopedia)

I enjoy starting sentences with "And." But I particularly enjoy beginning with "But." I revise to avoid unnecessary adverbs, but some adverbs are necessary.

As others have mentioned in this thread, much of the time when we want to put a preposition at the end, it's the right thing to do, and to say otherwise is giving in to a late scribal affectation. The root of our confusion comes from our Germanic language heritage of seperable-prefix verbs, like abnehmen: to pick up.

Ich nehme es ab. I pick it up.

If you told a German that 'ab' is a preposition there, they'd disagree, it's part of the verb abnehmen. If you told them it was bad German grammar, they'd laugh.

I attended a prestigeous weeklong writers wconference/worshop at which most of the discussion leaders were fanatically anti-adverb. Of course, if you write, "I hate you!" she said angrily, the adverb is wasted. But (rule break- hee hee) at times I believe they are necessary. Be judicious in their use.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

We all break a few rules but some of us relish the opportunity. I tend to start with Strunk and see what he forbids. He doesn't mention ending a sentence with a preposition. He doesn't even rule against starting a sentence with "and" or "but". He does mention you must have a comma before either introducing an independent clause...Same thing, eh? Nowadays we toss out about a third of his rules and I suspect it stems from having gotten into such a strong habit of breaking them we would find it too tiring to change.

The phobia with adverbs (and why not also adjectives?) might be a push to more dramatic verbs. Rather than "He quickly ate his dinner," we would write "He gulped his dinner." My friend in northern England writes with few adverbs or adjectives and I find it blatantly intentional ("He thrust himself from the chair") but he is only following a growing trend and I am mired in the past.

Lance_in_Shanghai said:

The phobia with adverbs (and why not also adjectives?) might be a push to more dramatic verbs. Rather than "He quickly ate his dinner," we would write "He gulped his dinner."

Click to expand...

Exactly. Using an adverb tends to indicate that the verb is weak. Use a stronger verb, and the adverb becomes redundant. Sometimes, an adverb is the best choice. Frequent use, however, makes writing weak and wordy.

Arkie said:

Latin had no prepositions. Board experts in Latin may verify that..

Click to expand...

Sorry, Arkie, but your English teacher was mistaken. In fact, her lessons certainly included many English prefixes that come directly from Latin prepositions. Here's a list I often use with students who want to "translate" vocabulary words.

L. post, meaning after
L. ante, meaning before
L. in, meaning into
L. contra, meaning against
L. con, meaning with
L. circa, meaning about
L. apud, meaning by or before
L. extra, meaning outside
L. juxta, meaning close to
L. ob, meaning in front of
L. per, meaning through
L. secundum, meaning following on
L. simul, meaning together
L. propter, meaning near
L. sub, meaning under

Apologies for the pedentry. A good source for these prepositions and others is Postgate's New Latin Primer, London (1891), which will distinguish between prepositions that take the accusative and which take the ablative. Me, I'm going to take an aspirin.
Cheerio.